(5)municipalityofvictoriasvsca_fulltext

7/23/2019 (5)municipalityofvictoriasvsca_fulltext

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/5municipalityofvictoriasvscafulltext 1/8

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-31189 March 31, 1987

MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS, petitioner,

vs.

TE COURT OF APPEALS, NORMA LEUEN!ERGER a"# FRANCISCO SOLIVA, respondents.

Enrique I. Soriano, Jr. for private respondents.

PARAS, J.:

his is a Petition for Revie! on certiorari of the decision $ of respondent Court of "ppeals pro#ul$ated on

Septe#ber %&, '&(& in C")*.R. No. +-+()R Rollo, p. ''/ settin$ aside the decision $$ of the Court of

0irst Intance of Ne$ros Occidental, 1ranch I, dated Septe#ber %2, '&(2 !hich dis#issed the co#plaint

for recover3 of possession in Civil Case No. '4')S and declared the ce#eter3 site on 5ot No. 6( in

Victorias as propert3 of the #unicipalit3 of Victorias Record on "ppeal, p. &/.

he dispositive portion of the 7uestioned decision reads as follo!s8

IN VIE9 O0 :E 0ORE*OIN*, the ;ud$#ent of the lo!er court is hereb3 set aside and

another is hereb3 rendered8

'/ Orderin$ the defendant #unicipalit3 and<or thru its appropriate officials to return and

deliver the possession of the portion of 5ot 6( used as ce#eter3 or burial site of the

plaintiff)appellant.

%/ Orderin$ defendant #unicipalit3 to pa3 the plaintiff)appellant the su# of P2--.-- a

3ear fro# '&(+ until the possession of said land is actuall3 delivered.

5ot No. 6( containin$ an area of %-4,'6 s7. #eters for#s a part of Cadastral 5ot No. '2- Rollo, p. ''/,

a %6.%2(- ha. su$ar land located in 1o. Madanio$, Victorias, Ne$ros Occidental, in the na#e of the

deceased *on=alo Ditchin$ under a> Declaration No. +2%& of Ne$ros Occidental for the 3ear '&2' E>h.

?+,? 0older of E>hibits, p. %%/. :e !as survived b3 his !ido! Si#eona @in$eo Vda. de Ditchin$ and a

dau$hter, Isabel, !ho died in '&%4 SN, @ul3 ', '&(2, p. 6/ leavin$ one off)sprin$, respondent Nor#a

5euenber$er, !ho !as then onl3 si> #onths old SN, @ul3 ', '&(2, p. +2/.

Respondent Nor#a 5euenber$er, #arried to 0rancisco Soliva, inherited the !hole of 5ot No. '2- fro# her

$rand#other, Si#eona @. Vda. de Ditchin$ not fro# her predeceased #other Isabel Ditchin$/. In '&%,

she donated a portion of 5ot No. '2-, about + ha., to the #unicipalit3 for the $round of a certain hi$h

school and had 2 ha. converted into a subdivision. SN, @ul3 ', '&(2, p. %2/.

In '&(+, she had the re#ainin$ %' ha. or %-4.'6 s7. #. relocated b3 a surve3or upon re7uest of lessee

Ra#on @over !ho co#plained of bein$ prohibited b3 #unicipal officials fro# cultivatin$ the land. It !as

then that she discovered that the parcel of land, #ore or less 2 ha. or ++,626 s7.#. used b3 Petitioner

Municipalit3 of Victorias, as a ce#eter3 fro# '&+2, is !ithin her propert3 !hich is no! Identified as 5ot 6(



and covered b3 C No. +22( SN, @ul3 ', '&(2, pp. 6)&A E>h. ?2,? 0older of E>hibits, p. %+ and E>h.

?",? 0older of E>hibits, p. '/.

On Ma3 %-, '&(+, Respondent !rote the Ma3or of Victorias re$ardin$ her discover3, de#andin$ pa3#ent

of past rentals and re7uestin$ deliver3 of the area alle$edl3 ille$all3 occupied b3 Petitioner E>h. ?*,

0older of E>hibits, p. '/. 9hen the Ma3or replied that Petitioner bou$ht the land she asBed to be sho!n

the papers concernin$ the sale but !as referred b3 the Ma3or to the #unicipal treasurer !ho refused tosho! the sa#e SN, @ul3 ', '&(2, pp. +%)++/.

On @anuar3 '', '&(2, Respondents filed a co#plaint in the Court of 0irst Instance of Ne$ros Occidental,

1ranch ', for recover3 of possession of the parcel of land occupied b3 the #unicipal ce#eter3 Record on

"ppeal, p. '/. In its ans!er, petitioner Municipalit3, b3 !a3 of special defense, alle$ed o!nership of the

lot, sub;ect of the co#plaint, havin$ bou$ht it fro# Si#eona @in$co Vda. de Ditchin$ so#eti#e in '&+2

Record on "ppeal, p. 6/. he lo!er court decided in favor of the Municipalit3. On appeal Respondent

appellate Court set aside the decision of the lo!er court Record on "ppea5 p. &/A hence, this petition for

revie! on certiorari.

his petition !as filed !ith the Court on Nove#ber (, '&(& Rollo, p. %/, the Record on "ppeal on

Dece#ber '&, '&(& Rollo, p. 4-/. On @anuar3 , '&6-, the Court $ave due course to the petition Rollo,p. 42/.

he 1rief for the Petitioner !as filed on "pril ', '&6- Rollo, p. 44/, the 1rief for Respondents !as filed on

Ma3 '4, '&6- Rollo, p. &%/.

On @ul3 4, '&6-, the Court resolved to consider the case sub#itted for decision !ithout Petitioners Repl3

1rief, Petitioner havin$ failed to file the brief !ithin the period !hich e>pired on @une '-, '&6- Rollo. p.

&&/.

On #otion of counsel for the Respondents Rollo, p. '-2/, the Court resolved on @une +-, '&6% to allo!

respondent 0rancisco Soliva to continue the appeal in behalf of the estate of respondent Nor#a

5euenber$er !ho died on @anuar3 %, '&6%, Respondent 0rancisco Soliva havin$ been appointed specialad#inistrator in Special Proceedin$s No. 42)V of the Court of 0irst Instance of Ne$ros Occidental Rollo,

p. ''-/.

In their brief, petitioner raised the follo!in$ errors of respondent Court of "ppeals8 1rief for the Petitioner,

p. ')+/A

I.

he :onorable Court of "ppeals erred in holdin$ that respondents Nor#a 5euenber$er

and 0rancisco Soliva are the la!ful o!ners of the land in liti$ation as the3 are estopped

fro# 7uestionin$ the possession and o!nership of herein petitioner !hich dates bacB to

#ore than +- 3ears.

II.

he :onorable Court of "ppeals also erred in orderin$ the petition petitioner to deliver the

possession of the land in 7uestion to the respondents No#ia 5euenber$er and 0rancisco

Soliva, b3 holdin$ that non)annotation on the orrens Certificate of itle could not affect

the said land !hen the possession b3 the petitioner of the said land for over +- 3ears and

usin$ it as a public ce#eter3 for that len$th of ti#e are sufficient proof of purchase and



transfer of title and non)annotation of the Certificate of itle did not render the sale

ineffectual

III.

he :onorable Court of "ppeals further erred in orderin$ the petitioner Municipalit3 of

Victories to pa3 the respondents the su# of P2--.-- a 3ear fro# '&(+ until possession isactuall3 delivered because under the la!, an o!ner of a piece of land has no obli$ation to

pa3 rentals as it o!ns and possesses the sa#e.

here is #erit in the petition.

It is undisputed that petitioner failed to present before the Court a Deed of Sale to prove its purchase of

the land in 7uestion !hich is included in the ransfer Certificate of itle No. )+22( in the na#e of

private respondent Nor#a 5euenber$er.

he pivotal issue in this case is !hether or not the secondar3 evidence presented b3 the petitioner

#unicipalit3 is sufficient to substantiate its clai# that it ac7uired the disputed land b3 #eans of a Deed of

Sale.

nder the 1est Evidence Rule !hen the ori$inal !ritin$ is lost or other!ise unavailable, the la! in point

provides8

Sec. 2. Secondary evidence when original is lost or destroyed. 9hen the ori$inal

!ritin$ has been lost or destro3ed, or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its

e>ecution and loss or destruction or unavailabilit3, its contents #a3 be proved b3 a cop3,

or b3 a recital of its contents in so#e authentic docu#ent, or b3 the recollection of

!itnesses. Rule '+-, Rules of Court/.

In lieu of a Deed of Sale, petitioner presented a certificate issued b3 the "rchives Division of the 1ureau

of Records Mana$e#ent in Manila, of a pa$e of the '&+2 Notarial Re$ister of Vicente D. "ra$on !ith thefollo!in$ entries8

Nature of Instrument — Co#pra venta % porciones errenos8 5otes Nos. '2-)" 3 '2-)1,

Victorias, Ne$. Occidental pa$o por esso despues aprobacion @us$ado la Instance, Ne$.

Occidental causa civil ''( Vendedora8 Si#eona @in$co Vda. de Ditchin$ . . .

ad#inistradora "bint. *. Ditchin$

Co#prador8 Municipio Victorias, Ne$. Occidental . . . . por su Pres.Mpal Vicente 1.

"rnaes

Valor8 P6-.-- ...

Vease copia correspondiente.

Names of-persons Eecuting! "c#nowledging$

Si#eona Vda. de Ditchin$

"d#. "bint actuacion especial No. ''(



@us$ado la Instance Ne$. Occidental

Vendedora

Vicente 1. "rnaes

Pres. Municipal. Victorias

Co#prador

%itnesses to the Signatures$

Esteban @alandoni

*re$orio Eli=alde

Date8 Month

& @ulio '&+2

0ees8 P%.--

&edulas$

E>enta por suse>o

0'-%644- Enero %(<+2 Victories, Ne$. Occidental

'emar#s.

En (ictorias, Ne$. Occidental

5os anne>es ". 3 1. estan unidos

sola#ente en el ori$inal de la

escritura.

Respondent Court of "ppeals !as of the vie! Rollo, p. '(/ that a #ere entr3 in the notarial re$ister of a

notar3 public of an alle$ed sale cannot prove that a particular piece of land !as sold b3 one person to

another, one of the i#portant re7uire#ents bein$ the indication of the area and the technical description

of the land bein$ sold. In the present case, since no deed of sale could be produced, there is no !a3 oftellin$ !hat particular portion of the propert3 !as sold to defendant #unicipalit3 and ho! bi$ !as the sale

of the land conve3ed to the defendant #unicipalit3.

It !ill be observed that the entries in the notarial re$ister clearl3 sho!8 a/ the nature of the instru#ent.

a deed of saleA b/ the sub;ect of the sale t!o parcels of land, 5ot Nos. '2-)" and '2-)1A c/ the parties

of the contract the vendor Si#eona @. Vda. de Ditchin$ in her capacit3 as "d#inistrator in Civil Case

No. ''( of the Court of 0irst Instance of Ne$ros Occidental and the vendee, Vicente 1. "nanosa,



Municipal Ma3or of VictoriasA d/ the consideration P6-.--A e/ the na#es of the !itnesses Esteban

@alandoni and *re$oria Eli=adoA and the date of the sale on @ul3 &, '&+2.

It is be3ond 7uestion that the fore$oin$ certificate is an authentic docu#ent clearl3 corroborated and

supported b38 a/ the testi#on3 of the #unicipal councilor of Victorias, Ricardo Suare=, Ori$inal SN

:earin$ of Septe#ber '2, '&(2, pp. '%%%/ !ho ne$otiated the saleA b/ the testi#on3 of E#ilio Cuesta,

Ori$inal SN :earin$ of Septe#ber '2, '&(2, pp. %%+4/ the #unicipal treasurer of said #unicipalit3,since '&+% up to the date of trial on Septe#ber '2, '&(2, !ho personall3 paid the a#ount of P6-.-- to

0elipe 5euenber$er as consideration of the Contract of SaleA c/ Certificate of Settle#ent Ori$inal

E>hibits, p. %-/ ?as evidence of said pa3#entA? d/ a> Declaration No. 2%& I)id ., p. %%/ !hich !as

cancelled and !as substituted b3 a> Declaration No. +(-- coverin$ the portion of the propert3 unsold

Decision, C0I, Ne$. Occidental Ori$. Record on "ppeal, p. (/ and e/ a> Declaration No. +(-' I)id , p.

%+/ in the na#e of the Municipal *overn#ent of Victorias coverin$ the portion occupied as ce#eter3.

a> Declaration No. +(-' sho!s on its face the boundaries as follo!s8

North NE 5ot No. '2-)C of the Subdivision

South S9 5ot No. '2-)C of the Subdivision

9est N9 5ots Nos. '2-)C F '2-)1 of the Subdivision.

he area is ++,626 s7.#.

"t the bacB Eh. 2)", the sale of a portion of the lot to the Municipalit3 of Victorias !as clearl3 e>plained

as follo!s8

Note8 he !hole 5ot No. '2-, belon$s to Nor#a 5euenber$er as evidenced b3 a ransfer

of Cert. of itle No. '4(6%. Portion of this 5ot, +-,--- s7.#. !as sold to Municipalit3 of

Victories for Ce#eter3 Site as evidenced b3 a Deed of Sale e>ecuted b3 Si#eona @in$co

Vda. de Ditchin$ in favor of the aforesaid Municipalit3 and ratified b3 Notar3 Public Mr.Vicente "ra$on under Doc. No. '+%A Pa$e No. %A 1ooB No. '-, Series of '&+2.

"t the lo!est portion under Me#oranda it !as e>plained that

he area under this declaration includes +,62( s7. #eters donated b3 Mrs. Si#eona

@in$co Vda. de Ditchin$ and used as road leadin$ to the ce#eter3. ? EGI5 2A Ori$inal

E>hibits, p. %+/.

he above)#entioned testi#onies and docu#entar3 evidence sufficientl3 Identif3 the land sold b3 the

predecessors)in)interest of private respondent. o insist on the technical description of the land in dispute

!ould be to sacrifice substance to for# !hich !ould undoubtedl3 result in #anifest in;ustice to the

petitioner.

Moreover, it is e>pressl3 provided b3 la! that the thin$ sold shall be understood as delivered, !hen it is

placed in the control and possession of the vendee. Civil Code "rt. '2&6/. 9here there is no e>press

provision that title shall not pass until pa3#ent of the price, and the thin$ $old has been delivered, title

passes fro# the #o#ent the thin$ sold is placed in the possession and control of the bu3er. Huen=le F

Streiff vs. 9atson F Co., '+ Phi5 %( '&-&J/. Deliver3 produces its natural effects in la!, the principal and

#ost i#portant of !hich bein$ the conve3ance of o!nership, !ithout pre;udice to the ri$ht of the vendor to

pa3#ent of the price. Oce;o, Pere= F Co. vs. International 1anBin$ Corp., +6 Phi5 (+' '&'4J/.



Si#ilarl3, !hen the sale is #ade throu$h a public instru#ent, the e>ecution thereof shall be e7uivalent to

the deliver3 of the thin$ !hich is the ob;ect of the contract, if fro# the deed, the contrar3 does not appear

or cannot be clearl3 inferred. Civil Code "rt. '2&4/. he e>ecution of the public instru#ent operates as a

for#al or s3#bolic deliver3 of the propert3 sold and authori=es the bu3er to use the docu#ent as proof of

o!nership. 0lorendo v. 0o=, %- Phi5 +44 '&''J/.

In the case at bar it is undisputed that petitioner had been in open, public, adverse and continuouspossession of the land for a period of #ore than thirt3 3ears. In fact, accordin$ to the #unicipal treasurer

there are over '--- $raves in the ce#eter3. Decision, Court of "ppeals, Rollo, pp. '')%%/.

"s correctl3 observed b3 @ustice Ma$no S. *at#aitan in his dissentin$ opinion Rollo, pp. %+)%4/ in the

decision of this case b3 the Court of "ppeals, the evidence establishes !ithout debate that the propert3

!as ori$inall3 re$istered in '&'(. Plaintiff !as born onl3 in '&%4 and cannot possibl3 be the re$istered

o!ner of the ori$inal lot '2- at the ti#e. Indeed, accordin$ to her o!n evidence, E>hibit "A Ori$inal

Record pp. '+/ she beca#e the re$istered o!ner onl3 in '&(+. 5iBe!ise, it is undisputed that in the

intestate estate of *on=alo Ditchin$, the $randfather of private respondent Nor#a 5eunber$er, it !as her

$rand#other, Si#eona, the survivin$ spouse of *on=alo !ho !as na#ed ;udicial ad#inistratri>.

"ccordin$ to Nor#as o!n testi#on3, Isabel her #other, died in '&%4 SN "u$. '%, '&(2, p. +2/ !hile

Si#eona the $rand#other died in '&2%. I)id ./ herefore, as of '&+2 !hen a docu#ent of sale !ase>ecuted b3 Si#eona in favor of the #unicipalit3 of Victories as indubitabl3 sho!n in the notarial re$ister

E>hibit ."/ in 7uestion, Si#eona !as still the ad#inistratri> of the properties left b3 her husband,

*on=alo and of their con;u$al partnership. Conse7uentl3, she is the onl3 person !ho could le$all3 dispose

of b3 sale this particular four) hectare portion of 5ot '2-. "nd so it is, that in '&+2, Si#eona Ditchin$ in

her capacit3 as ;udicial ad#inistratri> #ade and e>ecuted the docu#ent described in the Report as 5ots

'2-)" and '2-)1, sho!in$ clearl3 that the3 are portions of the ori$inal bi$ 5ot '2-. "s this conve3ance

!as e>ecuted b3 the ;udicial ad#inistratri>, un7uestionabl3 the part3 authori=ed to dispose of the sa#e,

the presu#ption #ust be that she did so upon proper authorit3 of the Court of 0irst Instance.

"s to the description of the propert3 sold, the fact that a notarial report sho!s that the3 are portions of 5ot

'2- and the propert3 in 7uestion occupied b3 the public ce#eter3 is ad#ittedl3 a portion of said lot in the

absence of evidence that there !ere other portions of 5ot '2- ceded unto the petitioner #unicipalit3, the

inevitable conclusion is that the sale e>ecuted in the Notarial Re$ister refers to the disputed lot.

nfortunatel3, the purchaser Municipalit3 of Victorias failed to re$ister said Deed of SaleA hence, !hen

Si#eona @in$co Vda. de Ditchin$ died, her $rand)dau$hter, respondent Nor#a 5euenber$er clai#ed to

have inherited the land in dispute and succeeded in re$isterin$ said land under the orrens s3ste#. Said

land is no! covered b3 ransfer Certificate of itle No. )+2-+( E>hibit ", supra/ issued b3 the Re$ister

of Deeds of )Ne$ros Occidental on March '', '&(+ in the na#e of Nor#a 5euenber$er, #arried to

0rancisco Soliva, containin$ an area of %-4,'6 s7uare #eters. "s re$istered o!ner, she is

un7uestionabl3 entitled to the protection afforded to a holder of a orrens itle.

"d#ittedl3, it is !ell)settled that under the orrens S3ste# ?Ever3 person receivin$ a certificate of title in

pursuance of a decree of re$istration, . . . shall hold the sa#e free of all encu#brance e>cept those noted

on said certificate ... ? Sec. +&, "ct 2&(A no! Sec. 2+, PD '%&/.

In the instant case, ho!ever, respondent Nor#a 5euenber$er ad#itted that she inherited the land

covered b3 ransfer Certificate of itle No. )+2-+( fro# her $rand#other, !ho had alread3 sold the land

to the petitioner in '&+2A hence, she #erel3 stepped into the shoes of her $rand#other and she cannot

clai# a better ri$ht than her predecessor)in)interest. 9hen she applied for re$istration of the disputed

land, she had no le$al ri$ht to do so as she had no o!nership of the land since land re$istration is not a

#ode of ac7uirin$ o!nership but onl3 of confir#in$ o!nership of the land. *rande, et al. vs. Court of



"ppeals, et al., '' Phil. %'./?he orrens S3ste# !as not established as a #eans for the ac7uisition of

title to private land, ...? It is intended #erel3 to confir# and re$ister the title !hich one #a3 alread3 have

on the land. 9here the applicant possesses no title or o!nership over the parcel of land, he cannot

ac7uire one under the orrens s3ste# of Re$istration. orela, et al., vs. orela, et al., 5)%642+, October

'', '&6&/.

9hile an inherentl3 defective orrens title #a3 not ordinaril3 be cancelled even after proof of its defect,the la!nevertheless safeguards the ri$htful part3s interest in the titled land fro# fraud and i#proper use

of technicalities b3 sno!in$ such part3, in appropriate cases, to ;udiciall3 seeB reconve3ance to hi# of

!hatever he has been deprived of as lon$ as the land has not been transferred or conve3ed to a

purchaser in $ood faith. Pedro Pascua, et al., vs. Mariano *opu3oc et al., 5)%+'&6, Ma3 +', '&66./

he Civil Code provides8

"rt. '2(. If the propert3 is ac7uired throu$h #istaBe or fraud, the person obtainin$ it is,

b3 force of la!, considered a trustee of an i#plied trust for the benefit of the person fro#

!ho# the propert3 co#es.

hus, it has been held that !here the land is decreed in the na#e of a person throu$h fraud or #istaBe,such person is b3 operation of la! considered a trustee of an i#plied trust for the benefit of the persons

fro# !ho# the propert3 co#es. he beneficiar3 sha$ have the ri$ht t enforce the trust, not!ithstandin$

the irrevocabilit3 of the orrens title and the trustee and his successors)in)interest are bound to e>ecute

the deed of reconve3ance. Pacheco vs. "rro, 4 Phil. -A Escobar vs. 5ocsin, 62 Phil. 4(/.

"s the land in dispute is held b3 private respondents in trust for the Municipalit3 of Victorias, it is lo$ical to

conclude that the latter can neither be deprived of its possession nor be #ade to pa3 rentals thereof.

Private respondent is in e7uit3 bound to reconve3 the sub;ect land to the cestui que trust the Municipalit3

of Victorias. he orrens s3ste# !as never calculated to fo#ent betra3al in the perfor#ance of a trust.

Escobar vs. 5ocsin, 62 Phil. 4(/.

0or a #ore e>peditious disposition of the case at bar, Rule +& of the Rules of Court provides8

SEC. '-. @ud$#ent for Specific actsA vestin$ title. ... If real or personal propert3 is

!ithin the Philippines, the court in lieu of directin$ a conve3ance thereof #a3 enter

;ud$#ent divestin$ the title of an3 part3 and vestin$ it in others and such ;ud$#ent shall

have the force and effect of a conve3ance e>ecuted in due for# of la!.

0inall3, the conclusions and findin$s of fact b3 the trial court are entitled to $reat !ei$ht on appeal and

should not be disturbed unless for stron$ and co$ent reasons because the trial court is in a better position

to e>a#ine real evidence, as !ell as to observe the de#eanor of the !itnesses !hile testif3in$ in the

case. Chase v. 1uenca#ino, Sr., '+( SCR" +( '&4J/.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the ;ud$#ent of the respondent appellate court is hereb3 SE "SIDE and thedecision of the Court of 0irst Instance of Ne$ros Occidental, 1ranch I)Sila3 Cit3 in Civil Case No. '4')S

declarin$ the ce#eter3 site E>h. E)%/ on 5ot No. 6( in Victories as the propert3 of the #unicipalit3 of

Victorias, is hereb3 REINS"ED. "dditionall3, 9e hereb3 order a/ the petitioner to have the disputed

land se$re$ated b3 a licensed surve3or fro# the rest of 5ot No. 6( described in ransfer Certificate of

itle No. )+2-+( and to have the correspondin$ subdivision plan, dul3 approved b3 the 5and Re$istration

Co##ission, sub#itted to the court of ori$in for approvalA b/ the private respondents Nor#a 5euenber$er

and 0rancisco Soliva to be divested of their title to the disputed land under Rule +&, Sec. '-, Rules of

CourtA and c/ the Re$ister of Deeds of Ne$ros Occidental to cancel ransfer Certificate of itle No. +2-+(



and issue, in lieu thereof, one title in the na#e of the Municipalit3 of Victories for the disputed land and

another title in the na#es of the private respondents Nor#a 5euenber$er and 0rancisco Soliva for the

rest of 5ot No. 6(. 9ithout costs.

SO ORDERED.

(5)municipalityofvictoriasvsca_fulltext

Documents